Johnny Isakson

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. If the Senator will let me respond, that is precisely what I am talking about. As we have had 5\1/2\ years since the Presidential directive, and since we--fortunately, and unbeknownst to me certainly, and probably the Senator from Iowa, none of us knew you would have these five lines in those original lines that were grandfathered. So we have had 5\1/2\ years of experience at NIH, with lines derived without destroying physically a viable embryo, but it would, rather, be a natural death. So since you have that, and since it doesn't cross that ethical line, that is what I was referring to. And you would have the opportunity to further the science in a bill that can be passed and not vetoed. So, with all due respect, that is what I was referring to.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask to address the Senate as if in morning business.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise to address a very serious subject. A lot of times when we come down here to speak, we are given speeches to make, and a lot of times on topics we don't know very much about. In my professional career, in my life before I got into politics, I spent 33 years selling houses. I had a company that sold thousands of houses every year in Atlanta, GA. I understand the joy of home ownership, the responsibility of home ownership, and the huge benefit of home ownership, I guess, as well as anybody. I have always said that the thing which separates the United States of America from every other country in the world is the fact that we are a nation of homeowners, and the rest of the world, substantially, is nations of renters. We all know that when you have an investment in something and you own it versus you are just leasing it, you take a lot better care of it. The single-family housing industry, the principle of our Constitution for the wide diversity in private ownership of land, is the single most important asset that binds our country together. It is the common interest that every citizen has, and it has become known, as we all know, as the American dream. Today, the Washington Times, Washington Post, New York Times, all have carried articles regarding predatory lending, subprime mortgage markets. The Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, has made a statement that they will be looking at regulations to deal with the subprime market. I think that is appropriate, but it is very important we understand what the problem really is. There are a lot of people who will tell you the problem is predatory lending. Well, predatory lending is a horrible thing, but it is like the term ``obscenity'' was referred to in the Supreme Court, something that is in the eyes of the beholder--you cannot necessarily define it but you know it when you see it. The subprime market has in some cases been referred to as ``predatory lending,'' and it is not. In fact, it is interesting history, where the subprime market came from. Fannie Mae, which was headed about 10 years ago by Jim Johnson, who wrote a book, ``Showing America a New Way Home,'' committed itself to widening the ownership of single-family housing. They recognized that in some cases, single-family housing was out of the reach of certain parts of society, so they created mortgage-backed securities to buy mortgages in the subprime market. The subprime market is subprime because the borrower is not necessarily a grade-A credit risk. But as we all know, at one time or another in our lives, none of us have always been a grade-A credit risk. It proliferated. That is why home ownership in the United States of America went from 67 percent of the public live in a home they own to now to 70 percent of the public live in a home they own. What has happened in recent months, because of some factors I am going to address, is the foreclosure rates have skyrocketed and the vast proportion of those loans that have been foreclosed on are subprime loans. There are a lot of people rushing to talk about doing away with subprime loans. There are a lot of people talking about calling them predatory loans and regulating whether they can exist, and they are, with all due respect, missing the point. The mortgage industry has made some mistakes, but it is not the mistake of trying to show Americans a new way home; it is a mistake in five areas which I want to delineate for one second. During the course of the subprime market's evolution and the wider distribution of home ownership, the underwriting of loans became less than what it should have been. Some examples: no documentation, where people could qualify for the loan and have it underwritten on documentation that was based basically on what they said they made and what they said they were worth; no-downpayment loans, where people could make loans with no downpayment, no equity. I want to talk about that subject for just one second. I entered the business in 1967, and the Congress, in its wisdom--to widen the dispersity of home ownership--created the 235 FHA Program. They would loan you up to $18,500, which doesn't sound like a lot, but that would buy a lot of house in 1967. You could borrow it for $200 down, and the rest of it was a loan. If you did not have the $200, they allowed sweat equity, which meant you and your wife could go in and paint the living room, dining room, and kitchen, and they would give you that credit. The loans proliferated and home ownership expanded, but because they really had no equity in the property, those houses started going into foreclosure, and the next year was one of the roughest--1969--one of the roughest years in the market. Congress held congressional investigations. What had turned out was that an attempt to originally expand home ownership had become an opportunity to make less than good loans to a lot of people who were not ready to borrow those funds. There is a third reason--the proliferation of loans like interest- only. Interest-only is a very sophisticated way to borrow. I understand real estate investment, and real estate investment is best when leveraged but only when leveraged right. When you loan someone 100 percent of the value of what they are buying, you have to be very careful in your underwriting criteria or else they really do not feel like they have equity in the proposition. ARMs and variable-rate mortgages, adjustable and variable rate mortgages--they are sophisticated lending tools and are very effective and very good loans, but they are complicated because after an initial low rate of interest, on alternating years, like every other year or the fifth year or whatever it might be, the loans adjust to the marketplace and the interest rate can go up or it can go down, but generally it is going to go up because it is generally a lower teaser rate going in than the market exists at that time. Home ownership is a responsibility. Another thing that has happened in the marketplace is that a lot of loans have been made to people with very little regard to whether they were prepared for the responsibility of home ownership. So my suggestion to the Fed and to all of those looking into this issue--I know Senator Schumer, Senator Clinton, Senator Grassley, Senator Baucus, and many Members of this Chamber are talking about: What are we going to do about this subprime dilemma? The first thing I hope they will look at is underwriting standards. The second thing I hope they will look at is a clear understanding through truth and disclosure and Regulation Z of borrower disclosures so that people know what they are getting into and a true look at whether borrowing 100 percent is the ideal thing to do. I do not think we need to have an overreaction to what is obviously a problem. Instead, what we need to do is try to perfect the process so that we can continue to show Americans a new way home but have a loan that responds to those people's needs. Those needs are better documentation, better appraisals and certifications, making sure there is equity in the investment and, most importantly of all, making sure they understand the responsibilities of that home ownership. As I said at the outset of my remarks, the wide diversity of the ownership of land and home ownership is what separates America from the rest of the world. We have the largest diversity of ownership of our land, the most homeowners, percentage-wise. In most of the world, all of the people who live there rent from someone else. It separates our country, and it separates us in a very good way. As we deal with the subprime market, we want to make sure we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is important to correct the documentation and the underwriting but not destroy what has been a tool to expand the ownership of homes to people who never thought they could live the American dream. Let's make sure, when we underwrite them, we underwrite them right and the people who are borrowing the money understand the responsibility of the mortgage instrument and the value of home ownership. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, this is budget neutral and kid friendly. It allows children to have access to health care and dentistry, and health care and mental health. It is a positive move at the expense of no one and for the benefit of children.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I am delighted to come to the floor and join in support of the amendment offered by Senator Chambliss and myself with regard to the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The State Children's Health Insurance Program was begun in 1997. At that particular time I was chairman of the board of education in the State of Georgia. I applauded the Federal Government for providing this asset and this benefit to our States. For the benefit of those who aren't familiar, the SCHIP program is a Medicaid Program, but unlike Medicaid today, it is a block grant, it is not an entitlement. Specific funds are block-granted to the States for the purpose of providing affordable health insurance to children in poverty. That is the way the program began. As years have gone by, States have chosen to elect to ask for waivers from Washington to expand the coverage beyond children. Meritoriously, some States have asked to cover pregnant mothers in poverty under the SCHIP program. I would be the first person to tell you that is an appropriate appropriation of funds and the intent of the bill. However, other States have chosen to add adults who do not have children to coverage under SCHIP, the result of which has compromised the program and taken money that was intended to go to children and sent it to adults. By way of example, my State of Georgia runs out of SCHIP money this month. We do not provide any SCHIP benefits to anybody who is not a child. Our eligibility threshold is 235 percent of poverty. So it is exactly as prescribed originally. But because we are a growth State and in addition took on the children from Katrina, we have run out of money early, because we had an increase in the number of people in our State using and taking advantage of SCHIP. There are other States that have used their money up by adults consuming it under this program. What Senator Chambliss and I have done is simply said this: If you are going to include adults in the Children's Health Insurance Program, which is a Medicaid program, then the reimbursement to those States by the Federal Government for the cost for children ought to be the enhanced amount which Congress passed in 1997, which is about 70 percent of the cost. But if you are going to include adults, that match ought to be the 63-percent Medicaid match, not the enhanced match that was put in to attract people in the first place to provide children's health insurance. Then you take that differential and you put it into a reserve fund, and offer States the opportunity to enhance their children's health insurance by including dental and/or mental health benefits. We know from our experience with young children in poverty that early prevention of dental disease and good dental health provides a lifetime for those children of healthy teeth, a lifetime of absence of dental disease, and a saving of untold millions of dollars in this country. So what Senator Chambliss and I have brought to the floor is very simply this premise: If you pass a State Children's Health Insurance Program, shouldn't it go to the benefit of children's health? If you decide to include adults, why should the Medicaid match be any greater than it is for adults anyway? And if you create additional funds by making this differentiation, should not those funds go to the two areas which are most important in terms of children's health, dental and mental health? I submit this is a thoughtful amendment. It is affordable because it is budget neutral. It takes the SCHIP program back to where it was intended, for children. It does not punish a State that includes adults under the Medicaid program, but it requires them to go back to the regular Medicaid match, not the enhanced match that was created for children's health insurance. If we adopt this amendment, more children will have healthier lives and children in poverty will continue to get the benefit of a wise and beneficial program this Congress passed in 1997. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise in full support of Senator Chambliss, the farmers of Georgia, and farmers around the United States of America. This amendment, while I am sure it is well-intended, has the effect of destroying agriculture in the South and in particular in Georgia. The cost of operations in Georgia is tremendous. To have an arbitrary cap such as this will be absolutely destructive to our part of the State and to the No. 1 industry in the State of Georgia. Why are we trying to hurt farmers who only wish to provide a decent living for their families? This is a diverse and distinguished Senate with Members who have all kinds of experience. But I doubt anyone here has ever bought a cotton picker--not one, not two. Many Georgians have to have two. When they buy them, they buy them at a quarter of a million apiece. That investment in infrastructure alone, added to the trucks, the pickers, the bins, and all the other facilities one needs, shows that this limitation would be absolutely punitive to the farmers of the South. While I respect greatly the Senator from Iowa and those who bring this amendment forward, I strenuously object to it on behalf of the farmers of Georgia. I concur with the other Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, that we should join other Members of the Senate in ensuring defeat of the Grassley amendment. Passage of this amendment would result in many traditional family farms going out of business in many, many States. The Farm Service Agency is already going to be overwhelmed by many of the new programs included in this bill. This amendment would result in increased costs to the government and to farmers. Supporters of this amendment say that these payments go to the few and the big. I could not disagree more. This amendment punishes the farmer whose livelihood depends solely on the farm. In my part of the country, a farmer must have a substantial operation to make ends meet. In the name of common sense, why should anyone want to punish family farmers who have made large investments in order to become competitive in an international marketplace? Why are we trying to hurt farmers who only wish to provide a decent living for their families even though they are facing soaring cost of production? As I have stated, this is a diverse and distinguished Senate with Members that have all kinds of experience. But I doubt anyone here has ever bought a cotton picker. You know what a cotton picker costs today? The average price for a new one off the John Deere lot in Albany, GA, is about a quarter million dollars. If you're an average farmer in south Georgia, you're going to need two of them. That's just the beginning of the equipment needs. There's tractors, grain carts, trucks--are all needed to put a crop in. By the way, you know where those cotton pickers are made? In a great State: Iowa. I wonder if those employees at that manufacturing plant support this amendment? The cost of producing crops today costs several hundred dollars per acre. Reduced payment limits and increased benefit targeting flies in the face of skyrocketing production costs and record-low commodity prices. In fact, this amendment would give less support to Southern farmers than the current farm bill does. My colleagues, I will not stand witness to the demise of farming the South. Therefore, I oppose this amendment and ask my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, today I wish to honor in the Record of the Senate the induction of my friend and a wonderful Georgian, Larry Nelson of Marietta, to the World Golf Hall of Fame. Larry was born on September 10, 1947, in Ft. Payne, AL, and was raised in Acworth, GA. Growing up, he preferred baseball and basketball. It wasn't until after he returned from military service in Vietnam that he actually swung a golf club. The first time he played he broke 100. Within 9 months of taking up the game in earnest, Larry broke 70. In 1973, Larry successfully went through the PGA Tour Qualifying School, and his breakthrough came in 1979 when he won twice on the tour and finished second on the money list. In 1981, Larry won the PGA Championship at the Atlantic Athletic Club by four strokes over Fuzzy Zoeller. In 1983, he won his second major, the U.S. Open, at one of the toughest championship courses in the world, Oakmont Country Club just outside of Pittsburgh. And in 1987, Larry repeated his victory in the PGA Championship with a playoff victory over Lanny Wadkins at PGA National Golf Club in Palm Beach Gardens, FL. In addition, he played on the U.S. Ryder Cup team in 1979, 1981, and 1987. I have known Larry for almost 40 years. In fact, I sold him a house when he was first starting out. It is also a huge point of pride that I am a member of the Atlanta Country Club where Larry Nelson plays today. However, Larry is more than a terrific golfer. He is also a wonderful husband and father as well as a devout Christian. It gives me a great deal of pleasure and it is a privilege to recognize on the floor of the U.S. Senate the contributions of my friend Larry Nelson. He is an inspiration to us all.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, today, I introduce the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act Amendments of 2007. The Longshore Act provides medical, physical rehabilitation and lost wage replacement benefits to thousands of workers nationwide for work-related injuries, illnesses and deaths. The Act is long overdue for attention from Congress, and I am eager to engage with my colleagues from both sides as to how we can improve the system for our workers, their employers, taxpayers and our economy as a whole. We all can agree that the workers covered under this program play a key role in our national security and in our vital international trade. Longshore and harbor workers labor on the piers of Portland, ME, in the dead of winter, just as they toil in the hot Southern sun in Savannah, GA. Their work is undoubtedly difficult and often dangerous. It is impossible to underestimate the extent to which Americans rely on the myriad of products these workers move in and out of our nations' ports. Every year, over 15 billion tons of freight moves through our ports, with a total value of $9 trillion. These workers deserve a fair and effective workers' compensation program. Since 1927, longshore and harbor workers have had a unique program all their own. Congress enacted the Act in response to Southern Pacific Company v. Jensen, a ruling by the Supreme Court in 1917. The Court held that the Maritime Clause in the Constitution forbids states from covering shore-based maritime workers who may become injured while working on vessels anchored in navigable waters. Now, nearly 90 years later, not only are private stevedoring companies covered by the Act, but so are virtually all maritime construction folks, builders and repairers of U.S. Naval and Coast Guard vessels, Federal contractors with overseas employees, oil rig workers, and even civilian employees at the Post Exchanges on U.S. military bases. As many of us have learned if we ever spent time in our State legislatures, States nationwide regularly amend their programs to incorporate the most modern and best workers' compensation practices. However, unlike these responsible state legislatures, Congress has not addressed the Longshore Act in over two decades. Since the last amendments to the Act, States from California to Rhode Island have found numerous methods of improving their workers' compensation programs, saving taxpayers' dollars, and eliminating waste, fraud and abuse, while always ensuring that workers have appropriate medical care. We must bring these State-level innovations in workers' compensation to the Longshore Act system. Technology, events, and even Congressional interventions have continued to dramatically change our nations' seaports and shipyards. Indeed, since 2002, per Congress's instruction, U.S. Customs has begun locating so-called ``VACIS machines'' at U.S. terminals. These machines are truck-mounted gamma ray imaging systems that produce radiographic images of the contents of containers and other cargo to determine the possible presence of many types of contraband. Eventually, EVERY port in the country will have the machines on sight. Will maritime workers be exposed to radiation? If so, will they file claims against their employers when the machines are owned and operated by the Federal Government? The bill I introduce today will foster a sound and fair workers' compensation system for maritime workers with a clear, exclusive remedy for their workplace injuries and illnesses. It will guarantee fairness for workers, and in the event of death, their survivors. It will make our ports and shipbuilders more competitive. It will ensure fair compensability, in that it will hold employers responsible for only that which is caused by employment under the Longshore Act system. It will fix, once and for all, the so-called ``Special Fund,'' an archaic and problematic vestige of early 20th Century public policy. In May 2006, I chaired a hearing of the Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety, at which we heard about many different problems with the implementation of this 80-year-old Act. I have incorporated suggestions from both sides in crafting the bill I introduce today. Since I began dealing with this issue last year, I have talked with more and more workers, port operators, and administrators from the Port of Savannah in my home State of Georgia. Savannah is the Nation's eleventh busiest waterborne freight gateway for international trade. Every year, over $20 billion of international freight move through it and its neighboring port of Brunswick. The folks I talk to at Savannah and Brunswick tell me that they can't emphasize enough the importance of revising the Longshore Act to make it more efficient. I hope we can move on this bill, for the sake of taxpayers, for workers in Savannah and Brunswick and at ports and ship building facilities nationwide, and for the international commerce that is vital to our Nation's economy and way of life.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, today, I introduce the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act Amendments of 2007. The Longshore Act provides medical, physical rehabilitation and lost wage replacement benefits to thousands of workers nationwide for work-related injuries, illnesses and deaths. The Act is long overdue for attention from Congress, and I am eager to engage with my colleagues from both sides as to how we can improve the system for our workers, their employers, taxpayers and our economy as a whole. We all can agree that the workers covered under this program play a key role in our national security and in our vital international trade. Longshore and harbor workers labor on the piers of Portland, ME, in the dead of winter, just as they toil in the hot Southern sun in Savannah, GA. Their work is undoubtedly difficult and often dangerous. It is impossible to underestimate the extent to which Americans rely on the myriad of products these workers move in and out of our nations' ports. Every year, over 15 billion tons of freight moves through our ports, with a total value of $9 trillion. These workers deserve a fair and effective workers' compensation program. Since 1927, longshore and harbor workers have had a unique program all their own. Congress enacted the Act in response to Southern Pacific Company v. Jensen, a ruling by the Supreme Court in 1917. The Court held that the Maritime Clause in the Constitution forbids states from covering shore-based maritime workers who may become injured while working on vessels anchored in navigable waters. Now, nearly 90 years later, not only are private stevedoring companies covered by the Act, but so are virtually all maritime construction folks, builders and repairers of U.S. Naval and Coast Guard vessels, Federal contractors with overseas employees, oil rig workers, and even civilian employees at the Post Exchanges on U.S. military bases. As many of us have learned if we ever spent time in our State legislatures, States nationwide regularly amend their programs to incorporate the most modern and best workers' compensation practices. However, unlike these responsible state legislatures, Congress has not addressed the Longshore Act in over two decades. Since the last amendments to the Act, States from California to Rhode Island have found numerous methods of improving their workers' compensation programs, saving taxpayers' dollars, and eliminating waste, fraud and abuse, while always ensuring that workers have appropriate medical care. We must bring these State-level innovations in workers' compensation to the Longshore Act system. Technology, events, and even Congressional interventions have continued to dramatically change our nations' seaports and shipyards. Indeed, since 2002, per Congress's instruction, U.S. Customs has begun locating so-called ``VACIS machines'' at U.S. terminals. These machines are truck-mounted gamma ray imaging systems that produce radiographic images of the contents of containers and other cargo to determine the possible presence of many types of contraband. Eventually, EVERY port in the country will have the machines on sight. Will maritime workers be exposed to radiation? If so, will they file claims against their employers when the machines are owned and operated by the Federal Government? The bill I introduce today will foster a sound and fair workers' compensation system for maritime workers with a clear, exclusive remedy for their workplace injuries and illnesses. It will guarantee fairness for workers, and in the event of death, their survivors. It will make our ports and shipbuilders more competitive. It will ensure fair compensability, in that it will hold employers responsible for only that which is caused by employment under the Longshore Act system. It will fix, once and for all, the so-called ``Special Fund,'' an archaic and problematic vestige of early 20th Century public policy. In May 2006, I chaired a hearing of the Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety, at which we heard about many different problems with the implementation of this 80-year-old Act. I have incorporated suggestions from both sides in crafting the bill I introduce today. Since I began dealing with this issue last year, I have talked with more and more workers, port operators, and administrators from the Port of Savannah in my home State of Georgia. Savannah is the Nation's eleventh busiest waterborne freight gateway for international trade. Every year, over $20 billion of international freight move through it and its neighboring port of Brunswick. The folks I talk to at Savannah and Brunswick tell me that they can't emphasize enough the importance of revising the Longshore Act to make it more efficient. I hope we can move on this bill, for the sake of taxpayers, for workers in Savannah and Brunswick and at ports and ship building facilities nationwide, and for the international commerce that is vital to our Nation's economy and way of life.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague, Senator Chambliss from Georgia, and his excellent remarks. I stand today shoulder to shoulder with him in endorsing Senator Cornyn in what he has brought forward to the Senate. Notwithstanding one's position on the debate of the last 3 days, I think it is ironic that we spent the last 72 hours debating whether we should give collective bargaining rights to TSA employees after we debated this 5 years ago and decided not to do that and after having spent very little time talking about 9/ 11 and the security of the United States of America. What Senator Cornyn has done is taken the ideas of Senator Kyl, Senator Grassley, Senator Cornyn, and others and brought forward meaningful amendments that ought to be on a 9/11 bill. I sincerely hope that my colleagues, when the cloture vote comes forward tomorrow, will vote to invoke cloture so we can bring these amendments to the floor and have a meaningful addition to the 9/11 bill. I wish to talk about three of these amendments for just a second and talk about why they are so important. No. 1 is on recruiting. It is always good when you can tell a real life story and not just a hypothetical. About a year ago, in my hometown of Atlanta, GA, there was an announcement by the U.S. Secret Service, the CIA, and international intelligence agencies that two young men at Georgia Tech--the Georgia Institute of Technology--had been taken into custody under suspicion of terrorism. As it turns out, both of these two young men, using the library computers at Georgia Tech, were in a terrorist cell that was born in Pakistan, organized in Toronto, and was recruiting in Atlanta, GA. Now, not because we overlooked it but because nobody ever thought about it, we have never had a statute to punish someone for recruiting terrorism. So right in my own home State of Georgia, right in my own hometown, two 21-year-old students at Georgia Tech were recruited and, fortunately, caught and, fortunately--because of the PATRIOT Act, I might add--intercepted because of the watching and the maintenance of those computers. But this was a terrorist cell, and these individuals were recruited. There is no punishment for recruiting those folks. Al-Qaida has demonstrated and the 9/11 Commission told us that recruitment is the main source or resource of human beings for suicide bombers, for airplane hijackers, and others who would carry out the acts of al-Qaida. So, first of all, Senator Cornyn bringing this forward is absolutely appropriate. Secondly, and briefly, Senator Grassley's amendment with regard to the reviewability of the revocation of a visa is included in this package. Paint this picture for a second: All 19 of the hijackers on 9/ 11 got into the United States in a legal way. Most of them had overstayed their visas. But just think for a second. Had they been caught, had they been suspected of a terrorist act when they were about to commit it, and had their visa been revoked, they would have had the right to stay in this country and judicially appeal that revocation, which meant they could have stayed here even after being identified and quite possibly still carried out a terrorist attack. To let you know how important this amendment is, I have an interesting fact for everybody to take in and digest for just a second. In 1986, when we reformed immigration in this country, we granted amnesty and created a number of legal citizens and legal visas in the United States. We also created a mechanism for judicial review. There are still two cases from the 1986 Immigration Reform Act under judicial review 21 years later. Those individuals still remain in the United States of America. If we capture somebody for suspected terrorism and, under the disciplines we use, revoke that visa, it only stands to reason that they should not be reviewable and should be returned to the country from which they came. Otherwise, we would be knowingly and willingly harboring someone we suspect would cause harm to the United States of America and commit a terrorist act. Mr. President, I appreciate the time that has been afforded me. I stand in full support of the Cornyn amendment and in a sincere hope that my colleagues will vote for the motion to invoke cloture and pass this very important amendment for the safety and security of the United States of America and its people. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, today I honor the 200th Anniversary of Putnam County, GA. Putnam County was created by an act of the Georgia Assembly on December 10, 1807. It was laid out from Baldwin County and lies in the heart of Georgia's Piedmont region. It was named for one of the most noted patriots of the Revolutionary War, GEN Israel Putnam of Massachusetts. The city of Eatonton was founded as the seat of Putnam County in 1808 and was incorporated the following year. Known as the ``Dairy Capital of Georgia,'' Putnam County is also home to Rock Eagle 4-H Center. The Rock Eagle Mound is 102 feet long and 120 feet wide. It is believed to have been built by Native Americans over 2,000 years ago and was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1978. Putnam County is also the birthplace of several famous Georgians, including journalist and author Joel Chandler Harris, author Alice Walker, and Chick-fil-a founder and CEO S. Truett Cathy. It gives me a great deal of pleasure and it is a privilege to recognize on the floor of the U.S. Senate the contributions of Putnam County to the State of Georgia. I congratulate this great county on its 200th anniversary.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, today I honor a wonderful Georgian, James Lonnie ``J.L.'' Jerden of Atlanta, as he prepares to celebrate his 70th birthday. Now, J.L. is no ordinary Georgian. His beautiful daughter Susan is married to my son John, and we share four amazing grandchildren. I am proud to consider him part of my extended family. J.L. was born on March 19, 1937, in Memphis, TN, where he was one of eight children. In high school, he was salutatorian of his senior class and the statewide president of Beta Club as well as an accomplished athlete on the football and baseball fields. Somehow, he also managed to find time to play bass in a warm-up band for Elvis. He attended Rhodes College where he played football. Following graduation, J.L. worked for Aetna before joining and becoming a partner in Pritchard and Jerden, one of the largest commercial insurance brokerage houses in Atlanta. J.L. also found time to serve as a Southeastern Conference football official for 7 years in the 1970s and chair the Atlanta Golf Classic. He also was the national president of the Chartered Property Casualty Underwriters Society. Today, J.L. enjoys spending time with his lovely wife Jane, their three children, and their four grandchildren. He is an active member at Northside Drive Baptist Church, where he serves as a deacon and has chaired a variety of committees throughout the years. He is also a strong supporter of the Atlanta Food Bank and Children's Healthcare of Atlanta. It gives me a great deal of pleasure and it is a privilege to recognize on the floor of the U.S. Senate the contributions of my dear friend J.L. Jerden as he prepares to celebrate this milestone. He is an inspiration to us all.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, back in Georgia, we have a saying. When people are treating the symptoms and never treating the cause, we say they are avoiding the 800-pound gorilla in the living room. I wish to talk for a minute about a 6-pound gorilla that is in the United States Capitol. It is called the U.S. Tax Code. Printed in the 8-point font type, the U.S. Tax Code weighs 6 pounds, but the burden is equal to that or more of an 800-pound gorilla on the backs of American business and American families. To that end, I am joined by Senators Vitter, Chambliss, Allard, Graham, and others in the introduction of Tax Code simplification legislation to finally address the 800-pound gorilla in the living room and the 6-pound gorilla on the back of every American. This bill simply calls on the Congress to establish a tax review commission which will be required to report back to the Congress on July 4, 2010. Its job will be to analyze all options for revenue for the United States. Consumption taxes or sales taxes, flat taxes, income taxes, productivity taxes, whatever it might be, wipe the slate clean and say: If we could do it all over again, what would be the best way to finance this great country of ours. Second, once they have made those determinations, they make the recommendations back to the Congress. Then it is the Congress's responsibility to either adopt the commission's recommendations, much as we do with BRAC, or to reject them and affirmatively ratify the Tax Code of 1986, amended thousands of times, now weighing 6 pounds on the back of every single American. All of us have different ideas over what is the right way to do things. All of us know the United States of America needs revenue to operate. All of us know that. But since 1986 and the major rewrite of the Tax Code, every year all we have done is decorate it like a Christmas tree, amend it here, lower it there, raise it somewhere else--until it has become an absolute burden. We all know--I know the Presiding Officer deals with it in his State, as I do--the tremendous upheaval over the alternative minimum tax which passed in the 1960s to address the 169 taxpayers who made over a million dollars who did not pay any taxes. Today, the AMT affects everybody, including a family of four making $50,000 a year, if they own their own home, deduct interest, and itemize their deductions. That is just wrong. So rather than take individual Senators--I respect every one of us in the Chamber, including, obviously, myself--take our ideas and try to volley them back and forth, why not get a distinguished commission of learned people to sit down for a protracted period of time, analyze what is right for this country, and make recommendations to us? We solved the political disability in terms of reforming the military when we passed BRAC. Why not take the greatest disability on the American people--and that is the Tax Code--and approach it the same way: have thoughtful people who are knowledgeable and understand the Tax Code as it is make the recommendations on what might make it better? It may be a sales tax or a consumption tax. It may be a flat income tax. It may be a series of fees or other revenue streams. It may be a combination. But what we need most importantly is simplicity, fairness, equity, and I would submit one other thing--participation by all Americans. Everybody has a stake in this country, and everybody should contribute something. I think if we open up the Tax Code to scrutiny, we give this group 3 solid years to look and make their determination, we get the recommendation back by July 4, and then we debate it in this Congress, then, by the end of 2010, we have two choices: We ratify what we have today, which is the 600-pound gorilla on the back of every American citizen, or we look to a vision for the future and adopt a fair and a simpler and a more equitable tax system for every citizen of the United States of America. I urge my colleagues to join us on this legislation, help bring about and make it a reality, and, for the first time since 1986, address the cause and not the symptom of the cumbersome nature of the American Tax Code.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, back in Georgia, we have a saying. When people are treating the symptoms and never treating the cause, we say they are avoiding the 800-pound gorilla in the living room. I wish to talk for a minute about a 6-pound gorilla that is in the United States Capitol. It is called the U.S. Tax Code. Printed in the 8-point font type, the U.S. Tax Code weighs 6 pounds, but the burden is equal to that or more of an 800-pound gorilla on the backs of American business and American families. To that end, I am joined by Senators Vitter, Chambliss, Allard, Graham, and others in the introduction of Tax Code simplification legislation to finally address the 800-pound gorilla in the living room and the 6-pound gorilla on the back of every American. This bill simply calls on the Congress to establish a tax review commission which will be required to report back to the Congress on July 4, 2010. Its job will be to analyze all options for revenue for the United States. Consumption taxes or sales taxes, flat taxes, income taxes, productivity taxes, whatever it might be, wipe the slate clean and say: If we could do it all over again, what would be the best way to finance this great country of ours. Second, once they have made those determinations, they make the recommendations back to the Congress. Then it is the Congress's responsibility to either adopt the commission's recommendations, much as we do with BRAC, or to reject them and affirmatively ratify the Tax Code of 1986, amended thousands of times, now weighing 6 pounds on the back of every single American. All of us have different ideas over what is the right way to do things. All of us know the United States of America needs revenue to operate. All of us know that. But since 1986 and the major rewrite of the Tax Code, every year all we have done is decorate it like a Christmas tree, amend it here, lower it there, raise it somewhere else--until it has become an absolute burden. We all know--I know the Presiding Officer deals with it in his State, as I do--the tremendous upheaval over the alternative minimum tax which passed in the 1960s to address the 169 taxpayers who made over a million dollars who did not pay any taxes. Today, the AMT affects everybody, including a family of four making $50,000 a year, if they own their own home, deduct interest, and itemize their deductions. That is just wrong. So rather than take individual Senators--I respect every one of us in the Chamber, including, obviously, myself--take our ideas and try to volley them back and forth, why not get a distinguished commission of learned people to sit down for a protracted period of time, analyze what is right for this country, and make recommendations to us? We solved the political disability in terms of reforming the military when we passed BRAC. Why not take the greatest disability on the American people--and that is the Tax Code--and approach it the same way: have thoughtful people who are knowledgeable and understand the Tax Code as it is make the recommendations on what might make it better? It may be a sales tax or a consumption tax. It may be a flat income tax. It may be a series of fees or other revenue streams. It may be a combination. But what we need most importantly is simplicity, fairness, equity, and I would submit one other thing--participation by all Americans. Everybody has a stake in this country, and everybody should contribute something. I think if we open up the Tax Code to scrutiny, we give this group 3 solid years to look and make their determination, we get the recommendation back by July 4, and then we debate it in this Congress, then, by the end of 2010, we have two choices: We ratify what we have today, which is the 600-pound gorilla on the back of every American citizen, or we look to a vision for the future and adopt a fair and a simpler and a more equitable tax system for every citizen of the United States of America. I urge my colleagues to join us on this legislation, help bring about and make it a reality, and, for the first time since 1986, address the cause and not the symptom of the cumbersome nature of the American Tax Code.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, in approximately half an hour we begin proceeding to debate on the 9/11 bill. Saturday a week ago we concluded without resolution a debate on an Iraq resolution. I come to the floor of the Senate this morning to share with my colleagues my thoughts on Iraq and where we are, and to do so in the context of 9/11. When I collected my thoughts about what I would say this morning, I thought back to a lot of lessons I learned from a great Georgian. In fact, on Saturday of last week, the day we had that debate, it was the 75th birthday of former Senator Zell Bryan Miller of Towns County, GA. I learned a lot from Zell Miller in my lifetime. I learned humility when he beat me for Governor of Georgia in 1990. I learned respect for class in 1996 when he came back and asked me to chair the State Board of Education after he taught me a lesson in humility 6 years earlier. When I read his book, ``Corps Values: Everything You Need to Know I Learned in the Marines,'' I learned about commitment. Also in the final debate I had with Zell Miller in 1990, I learned about how you snatch victory when somebody else thought they had it. In the closing debate, 48 hours before the general election when the cameras went on each of us for our last 60 seconds, Zell Miller's closing remarks were simply this. He said: You know, ladies and gentlemen, we are going to have a race for governor in 2 days and it's all up to you. But I want you to remember something. Zell Miller knows one thing. If you ever walk down a country road and you see a turtle sitting on a fence post, there is one thing you know for sure. He did not get there by himself. In taking that remark, I would remind my colleagues we didn't get to where we are by ourselves. We got here together at least in terms of Iraq. After 9/11 happened, within days, the United States of America changed and the President announced to the Congress we would no longer as a nation have a defense policy based on reaction. We would have a defense policy based on preemption. We learned on 9/11 you can't wait to find the smoking gun in terrorism to react, because if you do, it is too late. In the case of 9/11, there were 3,000 dead citizens of this world because we didn't preempt. The United Nations, 171 countries, voted unanimously in favor of resolution 1441 which authorized or threatened military action against Saddam Hussein if he didn't cooperate with the disclosures and the inspectors that the U.N. was prompting. When the U.N. failed to act and this President, George W. Bush, wanted to act, he came to this Congress and we voted overwhelmingly to support using force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable and to go after weapons of mass destruction and to go after those sanctuaries of terrorism. One would think, in listening to the debate in the Senate in the last few weeks, that some people have bad memories. They forgot about those votes. They forgot about the fact that George Bush didn't get there by himself. He got there with us. Now, are we disappointed in some of the things that have happened? Yes. Do we want to change some things? Yes. Do we differ? Yes, and the Senate is the place we differ. But while we differ, we should not discourage our troops. We should not discourage the people who are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world in terms of our resolve. So I would suggest as we go to the debate on the 9/11 bill, we consider it as a wonderful opportunity to make a simple statement, a statement that while we may differ, there is one thing we don't differ on: We don't differ on the fact that we will give our troops the support and the finances and everything they need to carry out the mission to which they are assigned. That is precisely what Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire wanted to do in his resolution that never could come to the floor in that 2 weeks of debate on the Iraq resolution that failed to get enough votes to get a final vote. It is time, with a bill as relevant as this 9/11, which is the genesis of all we deal with today, that we send that clear message. While we may differ on some policies, we do not differ on the financial support and the absolute commitment to our men and women in harm's way. I wish to put one other thing into perspective. As much bad news as we always talk about, a lot of good things happen. While some people may differ with the President's commitment to a surge in Iraq, even in the anticipation of that surge, there are some good things that have happened. Moqtada al-Sadr left Sadr City. He saw what was coming. Prime Minister al-Maliki already called for--and there are now talks about it--a regional conference on Iraq, including all the neighbors in the region--something many in here have called for, and I support, including getting the Iranians and Syrians into dialog. Last week, the Iraqi council approved the foundation of a hydrocarbon bill, oil revenue sharing with the people and provinces of Iraq. That is soon to go to that assembly. Think of something; the people of Iraq are on the doorstep of having equity for the very first time in their history. There are also disappointing things that have happened. Yes, we wish we were home with a victory already. But we have accomplished a lot, and we are this close to accomplishing the ultimate goal, which is a peaceful democracy in Iraq, terrorism without a sanctuary, and a statement that people are more important than power and dictators and terror. The United States is the country that has, in history, led and today needs to lead as well. I encourage our colleagues, as we get into this 9/11 debate, let's not forget about the debate we had on Iraq. We ought to send a clear message of support to our troops, understanding that we may differ on the policy. It should be clear and precise that this Congress and this country will see to it that our men and women have the finances and resources to carry out the orders to which they are responsible and they take on without any reservation. I began my remarks by acknowledging my friend, Zell Miller, and his 75th birthday and all of the lessons I have learned from him. He preceded me in this Senate, and I extend to him a belated birthday wish today in this speech. I also want us to be reminded of Zell Miller's many speeches on the U.S. Marine Corps, service to our country, patriotism, and commitment. Zell Miller knew as a soldier, he knew as the Governor of a State commanding the National Guard, and as a member of the Senate that while there may be political differences on the end result, there should be no difference in the support for the men and women who defend us and fight for freedom every day. As this debate unfolds, it is my hope we will have the opportunity to bring the Gregg amendment to the floor and vote to send a clear message to our men and women in harm's way that we support them, the funding will be there, and we will stay with them as they pursue the cause on behalf of peace, liberty, freedom, and democracy in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 574. I will vote in opposition to moving forward on that resolution because I don't believe it offers me the opportunity to express what I believe this body should be doing on the war on terror and the war in Iraq and for our men and women in harm's way. I want to take a minute to explain as well as I can why I believe so strongly and so passionately in that regard. Ironically, 30 minutes before I came to the Chamber, I got a press release from the Department of Defense announcing that deployment of over 1,000 members of the 3rd ID stationed at Fort Stewart, GA has been accelerated from June to March of 2007. Those soldiers will shortly be leaving our great State on their way to be deployed in Baghdad, specifically as a part of the President's mission to secure and hold and to build. I can't be certain of this, but I imagine some of those soldiers are probably watching television today in Hinesville, GA. They might even be watching C-SPAN. They might even hear these remarks. So I make them in the belief and with the hope that they are listening, as well as those soldiers in Baghdad and Balad and Tallil who are watching their monitors in the mess hall or the command post, as well as those who are our enemies, those who would do us harm, those who are the reason we are in Iraq and Afghanistan today. It is not right to send a mixed message in a nonbinding resolution while our men and women are deploying in defense of this country and at the order of the President, our Commander in Chief. The result of that is to send a message of doubt to our men and women and a message of hope to our enemy. We can have our differences--and anybody who watches the debate on this floor knows, we certainly have our differences--but there should be no difference or equivocation in the support of our men and women in harm's way and our men and women now on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. For a minute I want to talk about how deeply I believe in our options, because we only have two. The first is an opportunity for success. That is what the President has chosen. This surge, criticized by some, is even a part of the Hamilton-Baker report where they addressed a potential surge in their report. The President, after listening to many of us and to his commanders and, certainly to General Petraeus, has decided to deploy these troops to go into Baghdad, to go into Anbar, to secure it; and then, with the help of the Iraqi soldiers, to hold; and then, with the help of USAID, the State Department, and the world community, to build and to have a platform and a foundation upon which political reconciliation will take place. Every one of us knows that, ultimately, reconciliation will make the difference in whether our hopes and dreams for the Iraqi people and the hopes and dreams they have for themselves will, in fact, take place. I serve on the Foreign Relations Committee. I sat through 28 hours of testimony from countless experts, one after another. Most of them had mixed feelings on the surge. Some were unalterably opposed. Some said it may work. Some said it would work. They had differences of opinion, as we do. But in 28 hours of testimony, from expert after expert, from Madeleine Albright to Henry Kissinger, from think tank after think tank, from Jack Murtha and Newt Gingrich--Newt a former Speaker of the House; Jack certainly outspoken on this issue in the House--every one of them agreed on one fact: A redeployment of our troops or a withdrawal would lead, at the very least, to thousands of deaths and more likely the slaughter of tens of thousands and maybe even millions of people in Iraq and possibly beyond in the Middle East. Withdrawing, repositioning, turning our back is a recipe for disaster. And the world knows how important our success is. I spent last weekend in Munich, Germany, at the World Security Conference, where Vladimir Putin and the Iranian Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister spoke. We met with Chancellor Merkel of Germany and representatives from Bulgaria, Estonia, and Japan. Do you know what is so eye opening to me? With rare exception, each one expressed their appreciation for what the United States of America and our allies are doing, and their hope and prayer is we will succeed. They know what we know: We are in the ultimate war between good and evil. Iraq is but a battle in the war on terror that will move to other places. If we ever give comfort or hope to our enemy that we may turn and come home, leave the battlefield, leave them to their own volition, then we know it is the beginning of the end for the peaceful societies and the democracies of this world. Chancellor Merkel of Germany--a country where popular opinion is very much against the war--announced her commitment of more Tornadoes to be deployed to Afghanistan. We have 46,000 troops there--23,000 Americans and 23,000 from countries around the world--pursuing to keep that fledgling democracy secure as the Taliban makes one last effort. The enthusiasm of the world is in support of the United States and our men and women in harm's way. I think that enthusiasm should take place on the Senate floor in the United States of America as well. My vote tomorrow of ``no'' on the motion to proceed will not be a desire to cut off debate. It will, in fact, be a desire to elevate the debate. I think every side that is represented on this Senate floor ought to be a side that is spoken. I personally prefer the Gregg amendment and do not prefer and would not vote for the resolution of the Senator from Nevada, which is the same resolution now being debated on the floor of the Senate. I think I ought to have an opportunity to express to the thousand members of 3rd ID leaving to go to Iraq, to the men and women in Iraq who are listening, and to the constituents I have in the State, regardless of which side of the issue they are on--the Senate deserves a right to debate all of the valid points of the questions that confront us in Iraq. I know earlier in a speech given on the floor the content was primarily a recitation of the names of those who have died in uniform in Iraq from the United States of America. I don't take the position I take lightly, nor do I not think for a moment about the sacrifice that has already been made by men and women from my State--from PFC Diego Rincon, the first Georgian to lose his life fighting in Iraq--Diego, by the way, was not a United States citizen when he died, and we gave him citizenship posthumously because of the commitment he made to this country--to LT Noah Harris, from Elijay, GA, who was a cheerleader at the University of Georgia on 9/11. He was so moved by what happened that he jumped into ROTC in his junior year and pursued a commission in the United States Army, received it, and went to Iraq. He died fighting for what he believed this country was all about: to stand up to the agents of terror and those who would use it to pursue their cause. Also, there was SGT Mike Stokely, a brave American who died in pursuit of freedom and peace in Iraq, and the hundreds of other Georgians who have been wounded or sacrificed their lives. They should not die in vain. They went for the reason that they believed volunteers are important to them and their country. They volunteered and made that commitment knowingly and willingly. They deserve the chance to pursue this effort for success in Baghdad and Anbar with enthusiasm from our Senate and our Government. From me, they have that. When we read a list of those who lost their lives, we have to remember how long the list is of those who live today because our men and women in the Armed Forces, in wars past and in war today, fight for security and peace and fight for us to live. We saw on 9/11 the manifest horror tyranny and terror can bring, and we will see it again if we lose our resolve to pursue it wherever it takes us--Afghanistan, Iraq, or places yet known to us. Mr. President, I yield the floor, with the confidence and pride in the men and women who serve in the Armed Forces and my willingness to fully support an opportunity for success rather than a recipe for disaster. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 79, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, first of all, I thank Leader Reid and Leader McConnell for bringing this resolution forward in a very timely fashion. We learned during the lunch hour today that Representative Charlie Norwood of Georgia passed away, a victim of cancer. Charlie had been fighting valiantly that disease for over 3 years, having a lung transplant, and, unfortunately--after the transplant's success for a year and Charlie doing well--cancer occurred in one lung and then transferred to his liver. His wife Gloria has been an absolutely wonderful human being, seeing to it that Charlie continued to do his work in the House of Representatives, even though suffering greatly from the effects of the cancer that reoccurred. Charlie Norwood was elected in 1994 and was a classmate and fellow representative with many of us here--Senator Coburn, Senator Graham, Senator Lincoln, Senator Chambliss, and myself. On behalf of all of us who have had the chance to serve with Charlie Norwood, we today pay tribute to his life, the great accomplishments he made on behalf of his district, and his untiring effort to bring about quality, affordable health care within the reach of every single American. He will be remembered for many things: his tenacity, his great sense of humor, his commitment to his district, and to his people. But from a political standpoint and a service standpoint, he will be remembered for Norwood-Dingell, the legislation that laid the groundwork for reforms in health care that even go on at this day. So as a Member of the Senate from Georgia, as a personal friend of Charlie Norwood and his beautiful wife Gloria, and as one who is so thankful for the contributions he made to my State, to me as an individual, and to this body, I pay tribute to Charlie Norwood, pass on the sympathy and the condolences of my family to his wife Gloria and his many friends. And again, I repeat my thanks to Senator McConnell and Senator Reid for their timely recognition of the passing of Charlie Norwood. It is my pleasure now to, with unanimous consent, recognize Senator Chambliss from Georgia.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Chambliss and I, from Georgia, be recognized for a few minutes to pay tribute to Representative Norwood.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, today I honor two wonderful Georgians, Joe and Dee Sports of Conyers, as they celebrate 50 years of marriage. Joe and Dee both grew up in south Georgia. Joe is a native of Douglas in Coffee County, and the former Dee Plymell hails from Thomasville. They are blessed with one daughter, Susan, and two grandsons, Ali Joseph and Amir Elias. Joe has worn many hats over the years in Georgia and Washington including political leader, newspaper and television reporter, congressional aide and public affairs consultant. He was executive director of the Democratic Party of Georgia during the administrations of 2 Governors and served as a congressional aide to U.S. Senator David Gambrell as well as four Georgia congressmen. He began his governmental affairs firm, Joe Sports & Associates, over 25 years ago. He also edits Georgia Beat, Georgia's oldest political newsletter. Dee is retired from the Georgia Secretary of State's office after many years of distinguished service. She now enjoys helping to raise her grandsons, who live close by with their mom. On February 24, Joe and Dee will gather together with their family and friends to celebrate this truly momentous occasion. Although I cannot be there in person, it is a privilege to stand in this Senate and honor this tremendous milestone that embodies the profound love and commitment they have for one another. Their marriage is an inspiration to us all.